Six premature babies born in Vancouver, British Columbia could get a blood transfusion, if the parents allow it. Premature babies are usually encouraged to get them, especially the sextuplets born on Sunday, which weigh 700 to 800 grams.

The parents are Jehovah's Witnesses, a faith that has a doctrine against blood transfusions. (Officially, the church holds that blood transfusions consisting of blood products, rather than whole blood, may be accepted by Witnesses in some circumstances as a matter of individual concience; however, de facto all blood transfusions are forbidden to Witnesses. Many people who are a part of the faith create an Advance Medical Directive card ordering that no blood transfusions be given under any circumstances.)

"Non-blood treatment is way superior in every situation and many doctors in hospitals worldwide are calling it the gold standard," said Mark Ruge, director of public information at the Canadian headquarters for Jehovah's Witnesses, from his office in Georgetown, Ontario. "Even for young children and babies, there are alternatives – no (blood) transfusion doesn't mean you're going to die."

"To have blood is not the superior way, even though the little jingles on TV say blood gives life...Parents want the best for their children and so do we; we consider life very precious," said Ruge. "We love our children dearly; we're very family oriented... but there can be a public misperception."

Peter Cech, a spokesperson for B.C. Women's Hospital said their religious status was leaked by the media.

"I'm very curious about that," said a man of the Jehovah's Witnesses Assembly Hall in Surrey, B.C. "So what if they're Jehovah's Witnesses? What difference does it make? If they were Catholic would the hospital have said that?"

"If a Catholic had sextuplets would people call the Vatican?" he added. "When there's a car crash or someone has won the lottery, do they mention religion? This isn't a religious issue."

No information has been released since the babies were born after the parents publicly asked for privacy. The first child was born 8:30 p.m. on Saturday, the others Sunday.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canadian_sextu...gion_forbids_it

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two of the babies have since died as a result of the refusal for blood transfusions and the Government has stepped in.

The B.C. government ignored Supreme Court of Canada rulings and seized three sextuplets last week, allowing doctors to give them blood transfusions before their parents were able to challenge the move in court, the family's lawyer says.

Two of the sextuplets had died previously since the babies were born in the first week of January almost three months premature. At the time, the parents didn't want any details about their children released, however they did allow hospital officials to reveal that they are Jehovah's Witnesses.

government social workers seized three of four surviving sextuplets on the weekend so they could receive blood transfusions over their parents’ religious objections and Supreme Court of Canada precedent, the family’s lawyer says.
But the province abruptly handed control of the infants back to the parents Wednesday when they challenged the seizure in court.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...p-4470498c.html

This is precisely the issue with religon so few of its beleifs are to the benefit of anyone, often its about harming in this case the babys, who can't speak for themselves.... a religon that supports a beleif that is absurd, i'm glad the CPS has stepped in i hope they get the parents counseling, i feel bad to for the parents that they have been mislead..... This is soo soo very sad as I'm a mother and its just not natural for a mother to allow her child to come to harm, a mother will give her own life to save the child.....Gosh i can barely handle this.....My heart is jsut in agony reading this....

I had no idea that two of the babies had died... that's so sad! I know that religious freedom is a constitutionally guarded right, but how is it NOT considered child abuse, to refuse your child a blood transfusion that might save it's life?! That completely astounds me. I'm a fairly religious person, but there's no way on this earth that I would allow one (or two!) of my children to die, just because my faith says I'm not allowed to have my kids participate in a medical procedure that might save their lives!

The Government should seize ALL those babies and get them the medical attention they require, in order to LIVE. The parents should have to go to court to resume custody. There's no way that the religious views of the parents should be forced onto the children; especially when the child isn't old enough to protest! I think that the parents should be allowed to decide about blood transfusions only in their OWN cases; where is it written that they should be allowed to make such an important decision AGAINST medical advice, for someone else?

Gods. This hurts my heart. Those poor babies. And JUST THINK - the ones that live will be raised in the JW 'faith', no doubt. They won't allow life-saving blood transfusions, and it's NOT a cult? Somebody please explain that to me.

This, I'm sorry to say, is one of the dark sides of some religions. Though I'm all for allowing anyone to believe in any faith they choose, when that belief becomes detrimental to the life of another, I believe that is completely wrong, especially when the life of a child is concerned. Martyrdom is bad enough, but allowing one's own children to die because of faith is, in my eyes, a form of murder.

Well thank the 'verse somebody has some bloody common sense. Little babies shouldn't have to suffer or die because their parents are idiots. Unless of course they have complete and undeniable proof of their religion being real... I thought not.

You've really what kind of person would do that to a baby.

The reason for the Jehovah Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions is as a result of this biblical passage: (Lev 17:10):

10And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

This is re-affirmed in Acts aswell:

29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


Its odd to me that this would be extended to blood transfusions , since blood transfusions were completely unknown at the time the Bible was written. So the Bible cannot specifically forbid the practice.

I admit that I am completely unfamiliar with the Jehovah Witnesses way of belief, but I cannot understand how those passages can be interpreted to mean a child's soul shall be condemned if they receive the blood from another. Aren't children considered to be innocent?



"'verse"? A fan of Firefly?

That is curious.

Wiki has an article on this issue... Just skimmed through it and I still strongly disagree with the idea.

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions [Link]



I am.

I came across a somewhat similar case. I once typed a report for a doctor who had delivered a baby of a Jehovah's witness. She had lost so much blood she needed a transfusion, but her and her husband would not comply. Before the doctor could get a court order to go on with his work, she died. So tragic.

I try and respect the cultures of different religions, but I think this is one place where if I were a Jehovah's witness, I would have to make an acception and break the rules. If doctors are able to save my child or myself, I would let them do so.

They really did need the blood tranfusions obviously but also there are some other things they can do for them. I have lost alot of blood and gotten by with out a tranfusion but I am a full grown human being not a tiny premature infant. If my health had of started to decline they would have given me one but luckly with the help of medication I got back on my feet on my own. I think in an adult case then fine that is their choice not to have a blood transfusion but a tiny baby does not have the power to speak for itself therefore others are trusted to make the right decision. If my kids were born like that and given a good chance of being other wise healthy then I would allow a blood tranfusion. I think people need to remember that love for our children needs to be above all things. Not allowing these children help is like killing them. It should be counted as murder. I understand that people have a right to religeon but these babies have a right to live.

As with any religious issue, there are a lot of arguments both ways. In favour of the Jehovah's Witnesses is the freedom of religion. To deny a parent their right of religious freedom is a powerful argument. Assuming the child is forced to have a blood transfusion, how does a parent respond to their own flesh being an affront to the very core of who they are. Now, in favour of the transfusion, it does save lives, and a child does have the right to life just as much as anyone else.

The rights of the parent vs the rights of the child. It's a tough question, not by any means easy to answer. My personal opinion is that the child has the right to life, above all else, and if a blood transfusion will help save the kids life, then sod the parents. I wouldn't want to be the doctor telling the parent's that they are ignoring their wishes, though.

Regards, PA

I agree with you PA, what about the child's religious freedom. The child may grow up not wanting to be a JW so the parents are forcing their beliefs on to the child who has no religious beliefs. The child has the right to grow up and decide for him self. Until then it must be assumed the child is not a JW and should get the blood to save his life.

My aunt was a JW who died in hospital in November last year because she refused blood.

That to me, while dotty as all hell, is still understandable as she should be allowed self determination as far as her religion and her choices go.

But I cannot understand how a religious belief, which is so fickle and dependent on what people CHOOSE to believe, can be allowed to result in the death of babies!!

That is beyond the pale.

Give your babies to your faith and watch them die. The parents will have to live with that when they look at the 4 others, if they ever get them back, and remember the two that are not there. The government steps in to save the four possible future victims, and people scream:That's a violation of freedom of religion. But if a parent decides to sacrifice the life they gave , to the faith they accept, it's a double edged sword between the welfare of the child's life, and those that imagine it's all a matter of soul. It's a lose lose situation. Two newborns already attest to that. How very tragic.

^GW, just to run with taht for a moment, assuming all four do survive, I'm wondering how the parent's will think of those children. After all, they are saved by an (ith - in their opinion) unholy/unsanctioned blood transfusion. Is it possible they can come to resent their saved children, hate them, for being a thorn in the side of everything they believed.

I'm just wondering.....

I admit that projection of the babies future, never crossed my mind. If so, I would imagine them to be unfit parents more dedicated to faith than the life they brought into this world. In which case, the Canadian authorities should be commended for giving the babies a chance with people that wouldn't see them as tainted, because they received a chance to live the life they were birthed into, with the blood that made it possible for them to stay alive.

There is so much I don't like about this story.

I don't like that these babies were put at risk because of the parent's adherance to a precept that makes absolutely no sense (even the biblical reference behind it reads like gibberish). I emphaticly agree it was a good decision, but I'm leery of a government doing stuff like this as it does set a precedent for enforced morality. It's one thing when life is at stake(as in this case), but I don't trust the wisdom of those whose job it is to decide what is and is not harmful. Then again, I'm not a huge fan of governments, period, so it may be clouding my judgement.

Rev, I would agree under any other circumstance, I don't know how canada does things but in the States, CPS , Child Protective Servces, acting on behalf of the childs right steps in......Saddly it would be needed, but clearly you have unfit parents, in need of intervention.....Its unnatural to not as a mother or father save yoour child, its about as close to enlightenment as many get, acting on behalf of another for the other, no self interest......clearly these people are too self absorbed to be raising kids...Thats the thing with relgion it takes who you are naturallly and creates a unatural version....

GoddessWhispers
Actually the parental rights were returned to the parents immediately after 3 of the 4 surviving babies were given the blood transfusion they needed. This is one blood transfusion, what if they need more? The family is trying to fight any furure seizures of their children in court.

rev r


There was a supreme court ruling in 1999 that said that parents could present their case at a hearing prior to any seizure of their children. What the government did was ignore this ruling and seize the babies for a few days and then return them, while the babies were in the custody of the government they were given the blood transfusions..........the parents challenged the seizure in court.


Here's a quote from the father in response to the babies recieving the blood transfusion:
"[The mother] and I could not bear to be at the hospital when they were violating our little girl," he said in the affidavit.
"We took our immense sadness and grief and tried to console each other in private."

Here's a quote from Tom Christensen, the minister of children and family services:
"So in the event that there is a child that is need of a medical treatment, and it appears that the child is not going to receive that medical treatment because a parent doesn't want the child to, then medical practitioners have an obligation to report that to the ministry.

"We will review the situation and if necessary, we would go to court to seek an order to have that medical care."

The parents are going back to court in order fight any future siezures of their children and to demand an apology for what they call the province's outrageous and illegal handling of their case.


All this sparked from an interpretation of Biblical scripture, that appears to be a credulous interpretation of (Lev 17:10):

10And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

They are interpretating a Biblical scripture that was written in the absense of any innovations such as Blood transfusions and it is a religion that originated from a religious group called Bible Students in 1871 and then transformed to Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931.

How do you explain to any religious adherents that their interpretation of a scripture maybe out of context. I mean if there is ever a need to re-vamp your interpretation of biblical scripture it is when lives are at stake.

Update: Jehovah's Witnesses say they seek 'best treatment'

VICTORIA (CP) - The group that speaks for Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada has issued a statement urging people not to jump to conclusions about their faith.

The sect's prohibition on blood transfusions is again in the spotlight after the B.C. government seized three infant sextuplets and gave them blood transfusions against the wishes of their Jehovah's Witness parents.

But Jehovah's Witnesses Canada says in a media statement that even an Alberta judge has concluded people shouldn't assume parents are always wrong in refusing transfusions.

The release also says hospitals in Canada and the United States have treated extremely premature infants without blood transfusions by taking smaller samples of blood and accepting lower hemoglobin levels, among other things.

The remaining sextuplets are back in the custody of their parents after the B.C. government abruptly withdrew the seizure order Wednesday.

Their parents, who cannot be named, said in a court affidavit that the seizure and blood transfusions were "violating."

------------------------------------
They allowed babies to die and put other babies at risk and they want to be understoond? They're just awful human beings. Even the sickest of the sickest serial killers rarely target babies... So they're on their own level of twisted sickness.

Why are children called christian children, muslim children, jewish children and here Jehovah's Witnesses children? The children don't understand and never accepted the faith. Yet here we have awful human beings shoving religion right down the throats of innocent babies. They've already killed two in the name of their faith and they want to kill more! Is that really acceptable in today's society? I don't think it is.

This is a critical point, rev.

Setting "religion" aside, we in canada have a history of allowing the parents to decide on issues for their children unless there is evidence to suggest that the child is in danger. The question becomes one of how "danger" is defined. This is constantly changing. Just look at the changes in one generation wrt children/pregnacy. When do we as a society step in? When is it overstepping the bounds of the parent? Do we want a socialist-like model for child rearing, and where would such a path lead us (the ministry of reproductive services)?

Parents can still refuse treatment for their children, against doctors orders, as their guardians.

What I see in this thread is a lot of knee-jerk reactions placing too much authority in the wisdom of western medicine, and too much distain over religious belief. Would your responses be the same if an athiest family rejected the transfusions? How would you be judging the scenario if the family had doctors saying that the transfusion would not significantly increase the chances of survival but introduced another risk? The point is what is your threshold for telling others how to live. What is the threshold for you being told how to live?

If the choice to refuse a transfusion was based on risks that were true and apparent then the choice to do either or is based on evidence or facts.

The point is that an Atheist family would not deny their children a transfusion based on biblical scritpture.

The right to deny medical treatment is not the issue,IMO, it is the reason for the refusal. The issue in my opnion is that the family refused medical treatment that could save their babies lives based on an interpretation of Biblical scripture not by weighing the pros and cons of risk or gain.

This is why the government intervened.

ultimately, the reason is irrelevant unless you are conceding infallibility to the western medical community. (something that is very common).

The argument goes quite simply: if you have authority over your own body, then under no circumstances can the medical authority impose its "best practices" upon you. The extension of which is if parents are the trusted guardians of the children, then they have authority over the children's bodies. Thus under no circumstances can the medical authority impose its "best practices" upon them against the guardian's wishes.

Perhaps you wish to reconsider how much individual authority is granted? In doing so, make sure to review the past actions taken by the "state" when it was the guardian of the children.

edit:

think about this:
i know atheists that would never get a blood transfusion, and by extension if they had children would more than likely apply the same priniciple.
i have vegan friends that have faced the same type of scorn seen in this thread for raising their children vegan. Yes, the children are healthy. BUT, you could always play that card of "the damage won't show itself for x number of years". It happened to my friends.

How tolerant a society do you want? Everybody seems to think they are experts at raising their own children and thus should impose their approach on everybody else. Sound familiar to the complaints about religion? We need to think carefully about what society we wish to build.

How would your reaction change if next week the news reports an autopsy shows that a blood transfusion would not have saved these children?

As "trusted gaurdians" one's responsibility would be to provide the best chance for life to these babies. Many an endangered child's life has been saved as the result of the "state' intervening and removing them from their environment.

The actions of these parents borderlines on child endangerment. Yet they have not lost their parental rights, although they did for a short time for the transfusion to take place, then these rights were given back.

On a lighter note perhaps the government interevene to make up for their actions in regards to the Dionne quintuplets.

yes,

but the root question is "who is best to determine the best care?"

The threshold is ever changing, but we need be careful in our approach as a society to not put too much emphasis on "medical authority" or "state authority" thus be come just like that which everybody in this thread is condemning (look at the disdain toward these parents because they whole-heartedly accept the word of a religion, while these same people whole-heartedly accept the word of the medical community).

In this case the doctors are the ones who are best to determine the best care. That is why we rely on them for such. It would seem that the doctors are the one's who contacted the proper authorities to report this event.

I understand the perils of giving the "state" to much authority. And I'm sure some fears may lie with the idea of what will the "state" be able to do next as a result of this case. But there is also a large area to be traversed from this specific case to impeding on our civil liberties.

Regardless if the transfusion works or not, the fact remains that these babies were given the best chance for survival as opposed to what the parents would have allowed to happen. In Canada we all have the right to medical care, religion will not be allowed to deny a citizen of this right.

In order to build a utopia one must have a vision, the problem lies in determining whose vision is utopia.

That is a false reliance.

Look into the post-mortum studies to see how high doctor misdiagnosis is.

Now I agree it does come down to intent. Each party has the intent to provide what "is best".

Don't be fooled into thinking we have a "right" to medical services in canada. We have a privilage of having some state selected services provided by state funded medical insurance programs (funding sources varying from province to province). The "right" we need more of in canada wrt medical services is the right to choose our medical services and providers completely. This change is coming.

Most important "right" to medical services though, is the right to refuse medical services.

Were these children given the best chances for survival? we would have to go back a few years and review the family as well as it medical advice carefully to determine that! What you meant to say is given that the children were born in said state, you accept the opinion of the medical community that transfusions provided the best option at the time. Again, the question becomes one of where to draw the line as to when a "medical authority" can override the choices of the "guardian".

very true as you know my friend was diagnosed falsely with lung cancer a few days ago and turns out it was a nipple shadow on the X-ray......


Often they can override quite a bit, In the states they carry alot of weight and are relied on heavily by CPS....

This is something I can not understand.

A very good friend of mine has lost 2 sisters as a result of this belief her parents forced upon them. Both died from easily preventable complications of Juvenile Diabetes because her parents were to thick headed to help them.

As a result of this my friend was distraught for a huge length of time. The damage done to here was incredible and indeed endangered her sanity for a time. Only the help of her friends allowed her to get through this time.

My friend is no longer a JW indeed she has become an aethiest and now refuses to see her parents. The anger that is inside her is enormous. She still considers her parents to be monsters for doing what in her opinion was close to murder, or at least negligent man slaughter.

While I am all for allowing people the freedom of their religious expression, when that expression endangers the lives of people unable to decide for themselves, then it has gone to far.

I'd think they were just as stupid and idiotic as I do these JW's. Religion may help with faults in judgement, but it's not a requirement to be an idiot.



That would be taken into consideration and since I'm not a doctor, I would look to a doctor to give an answer. Though then again, I'm looking for a doctor, who has gone through medical training that has real evidence behind him/her judgements. Not some backwards ancient scribblings.

In this case, I don't want to reconsider. These children are in direct danger of losing their lifes. In many times the state takes over power for a person even sometimes labeling them mentally wrong to do it.

Also in this case, the JW's are using ancient scribblings to justify their murder of their children. It's not the side effects of blood being put into the children. It's not medical text based on real and outstanding evidence.



I would still feel the same way based on what we know now.

Will your reaction change if the surviving children do indeed live?

This is so often the case, I am so sorry for your friend AR, having you as a freind will help immensely..

kratos,

Indeed, "Religion may help with faults in judgement, but it's not a requirement to be an idiot.", but we must not forget that idiocy is relative.

"I would look to a doctor to give an answer." How do you determine the validity of the answer? "faith"?, your own research?, "popular opinion"?

"In this case, I don't want to reconsider. These children are in direct danger of losing their lifes. In many times the state takes over power for a person even sometimes labeling them mentally wrong to do it. " In many cases children have been wrongly removed from their biological parents over nothing more than hysteria. It is the hysteria and judgemental attitudes I am trying to address in this thread. You were one of those that called the parents murderers, i do believe. This is to imply it was their intent to kill their children. This is rather far reaching. Do you have evidence these people desired their children to die? If not, then you may argue it was negligent homicide (based on the laws in place where the event happened).

"Will your reaction change if the surviving children do indeed live?" I am not giving a reation to this case, which is not that unique. I am attempting to address the issue of what social structure do we want in canada. What do we want the future to hold, rather than getting riled up over this because one aspect of it "sets us off". If we decide the shape of our country by knee-jerk reactions we will have nobody but ourselves to blame when we become a cold, intolerant, judgemental land.

I know. There are idiots all over this world of all religions, colors, sexes and everything else.



Well you don't get the title of being a doctor without some training and schooling. I nearly always do my own research so yeah, a combined both of the two.

I do agree that there are some cases out there that are wrong as well for removing children from guardianship. Here though is a different case.

Oh, of course not. They didn't want to kill their children. They wanted to let faith heal them instead. A lot of good that did the first two babies who are now dead. To me, yes allowing some backward belief to use as an excuse to with hold medical treatment is murder. Also to the fact the doctors probably told them before the state got involved that the kids were in risk and they said no.



I do think it has to be by a case by case bases. Just so happens that this is one of those cases.

indeed kratos, this case might be a case where the good of the few outweighs the rights of religious protection.

In making these assessments though, we need to be careful in not trampling over groups in our zeal to reach a progressive society.

The best path to progress is for religions to fall by the wayside because its adherents see its limitations, not because we force conformity piece by piece.

Should we allow for forced conformity, eventually there will be nobody left to stand for your individuality when they come for you.

As it stands, protection of the individual has precident here in canada, even if it does come attached to religious ideology.

Unfortunately, things can go a bit too far, as with the current case of a town in Quebec bringing in a edict stating women are allowed to vote, drive, work,.... that women may not be stoned or have acid thrown on them,.... all under the pretext of letting immigrants know when they move here they are not welcome to bring their "old world" ways with them.

Hyper this is very well stated..


"The best path to progress is for religions to fall by the wayside because its adherents see its limitations, not because we force conformity piece by piece."


I agree there is no real long term change in force only the same thing just a different 'group' Reminds me so much of Peta, we arent' seeking more of the same but a general unity and desire to stand as one for individuality wthout harm.....The mutual understanding that what benefits one benefits all and what fails for one fails for us all, i am optimistic little by little I observe alot of growth... esepcially in everyday life....

I find that absolutely ridiculous that they wouldn't let them have a blood transfusion and sat their in their stubborness and watched 2 of their babies die. It's disgusting.

However, on the Canadian government taking the babies I am reminded by the Dionne Quintuplets (the only all identical quintuplets ever) also Canadian, who were taken from their family for 10 years to be put into a human 'zoo' for millions of tourists to 'ooh' and 'ahh' over, which caused irreversible damage to the quintuplets psyche. Admittedly, their own parents had agreed to have them put in as an exhibit in the Chicago World's Fair. Luckily, those sorts of things don't happen today, since it is just as much child abuse as refusing a blood transfusion, and in this case they gave the babies back.

Ya this story has been in the news over here a lot lately, gave everyone a break from the serial killer Robert Pickton skinning people stories. In my opinon, looking at this story from a morals are arbitrary point of view, I dont see anything "wrong" with what they did. I also have no problem with a women choosing to have an abortion, both cases involve terminating potential life by the choice of the parent(s). I would be against a JW family telling a woman she couldnt have an abortion because they dont agree with her choice therefore I am also against a person telling JWs that they cant make their decision because it doesnt agree their choice.

Both choices result in the death of potential life, one choice is seen as a morally acceptable practice by many, the other is seen as the most disgusting display of religious choice by many. I dont see how it can only go one way and that goes for both sides, if religion doesnt take the stand against this choice then they should also have no problem letting others make their choice.

Now I await the news of some nutter opening fire on some JWs to show that killing is wrong.

I don't even understand why this is not considered abuse. Religion should not have any authority on someones well being when their life is in danger, especially when the situation is pertaining to another person. These people LET their children die and I wish criminal charges could be put against them.

In our zeal we should be protecting the innocent who can't defend themselves from those who wish them harm and/or death.

Force is indeed necessary in these cases. They can preach and practice what they want, as long as it doesn't harm innocents.

If they want to use ancient scribblings to justify murder, I want to use my ancient blood to slaughter the english. Only fair right? Or should we shed the past and learn to move on into a better society?



Indeed, and I actually agree with that. Immigrants should be given a verbal warning about leaving their old ways behind.

When in Rome, do as the Romans.

Update: Biblical scholar says Jehovah's Witnesses wrong about blood transfusions

VICTORIA (CP) - A biblical scholar says he woke up Friday morning convinced he must wade into the blood battle in British Columbia involving four babies, their Jehovah's Witness parents, their church and the government.

Religious scholars have evaded the Jehovah's Witness blood issue because they didn't believe it had academic merit, but it's a story that must be told, said Prof. Michael Duggan, who teaches biblical literature at St. Mary's University College in Calgary.

Duggan said he's been in Alberta hospitals telling doctors his academic perspective on what the Bible says about blood and what many Jehovah's Witnesses believe the biblical scriptures say about blood.

But the message needs to be made more public, he said.

"The point that I make to the physicians is none of these texts has to do with human blood," said Duggan. "Certainly, they never had to do with transfusions."

"What they have to do with is the handling of animals that are slaughtered and the cooking and the procedures in cooking the meat so as to be free of contamination and disease."

Four babies fighting for their survival in a Vancouver hospital are at the centre of a debate about religious freedom and the power of the government to protect its citizens.

The babies are the surviving sextuplets born almost three months' premature in Vancouver last month. Two of the six babies have died.

The parents are Jehovah's Witnesses who say they were horrified when the government seized custody of three of their children and gave two of them blood transfusions, a procedure their religion forbids.

The B.C. government said it was obligated by law to temporarily seize the babies and administer the blood transfusions for health reasons against the wishes of their parents.

Last week, the government took custody of three of the remaining children so doctors could perform transfusions. The government withdrew a seizure order Wednesday and the parents regained custody.

But the government can legally move in again.

The group that speaks for Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada issued a statement that said hospitals in Canada and the United States have treated extremely premature infants without blood transfusions by taking smaller samples of blood and accepting lower hemoglobin levels, among other things.

Premature babies have extremely low blood volumes, are prone to anemia and require frequent blood tests.

When asked why the religious denomination refuses blood transfusions, spokesman Mark Ruge pointed to the Jehovah's Witnesses website.

On it, the organization cites Bible passages to back up the belief. They include Leviticus 17:10-14, which reads in part:

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."


The group also cites Acts 15:19-20, which states that God's followers must "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Duggan said the blood passages in the Hebrew Bible - Old Testament - often cited by Jehovah's Witnesses as their reasons to refuse blood transfusions are safe cooking instructions that date back to the 5th Century.

"That needs to be said," Duggan said. "The way the Jehovah's Witnesses read the biblical text is simply wrong."

The texts in the Hebrew Bible are mainly taken from Genesis 9:4-6 and from the book of Leviticus 17, he said.

"They speak about the life being in the blood, but the blood they are talking about is the blood of animals," Duggan said.

The case of the British Columbia sextuplets and other similar blood tranfusion battles in Alberta have him wanting to take on the Jehovah's Witnesses academically.

"I'm just concerned that people don't get victimized any more by this," Duggan said. "I mean this is life and death for people."

"It means I've got to write this article," he said. "As absurd as it seems to me to say this, I really do. I got up this morning realizing I have to do this."

A former Jehovah's Witness said the blood ban isn't always as strict as it appears.

Kerry Louderback-Wood, whose Jehovah's Witness mother died of a heart attack after refusing a blood transfusion late in her life, said the blood policy has shifted over the years.

Organ transplants weren't allowed in the 1960s, but they are now, she said.

Louderback-Wood, from Fort Myers, Florida, said the lives of the Vancouver babies should not be put at risk for a religious doctrine that has changed over the years and could likely change again.

------------------------------------------------
Even in the darkness someone is bound to be carrying a candle to see. I'm glad he's spoken up about the passages.

My goodness, this is mind boggoling in ways I cannot even possibly explain. How can someone take some vague text and say "Well if any of you or your loved ones get sick and need blood or an organ, too bad, just die because you'll go to hell if you don't! "

would that be anything like hospitals that refuse to help those without medical insurance?



does this apply to all, or just to those deemed worthy of said protection?

Don't forget that innocents are hurt every day because of what those with power practice and preach! As a society we do need to walk carefully when prancing about with our "higher ideals" while acting just like those we would so easily condemn as villans. Education, not comdemnation or persecution is the only true path to peace and understanding. Be not so quick to demand uniformity and conformity. Have you ever read a story about someone who rejected the medical advice given because they did not "believe" in it and be treated as some here would treat these JWs, only to see them vindicated later?

There have been debates on this board over whether or not raising a child in a religious environment is mental abuse. Would you force religion out based on your view that it is a detriment? We must be very careful when we act in this way, for it is easy to do more damage (see what happened when children were taken and stripped of their religion and culture, for example).

This type of event is a test of how tolerant individuals and a society is. It is easy to be tolerant when everybody conforms to one norm, but is that a measure of tolerance at all?

I would assume to all. Meaning all beliefs.

They are hurt in great numbers every year because of this. Compared to other ideals, I don't think it's as bad though.

I have read those articles about rejection of treatments even though the treatment would help them. If they are consenting adults, I have no problem with suicide. Minors however should be helped.

As much as I think it's mental abuse, and as much as I wouldn't like to see it. I do think that education should be used though to shed lights. Much like the teaching of evolution in schools despite religious belief. Education is key to understanding.

I really don't think I want a really tolerant society that is forceful to everything else. "The Giver" is a good book on this ideal and it makes you think. I do want to see other opinions but opinions are choosen. An oppression of ideas has never and will never work as long as we're humans and we're breathing.

Thanks for the response Ele. A very interesting perspective, and one I had not really considered before. Though for fear of turning this into a debate on abortion, I'll just leave it at the thanks

At the risk of sounding like the "nutter" you were waiting for... I can see where you're coming from, but the difference here is that these babies were birthed. An aborted foetus, while technically 'alive' (which is still up for debate) is still just a foetus - NOT a birthed baby. A potential parent, choosing abortion, chooses to end the foetus' "life" BEFORE birth, thereby negating any 'parental rights'. In this instance, the parents saw their children born, THEN decided to disallow medical treatment that would have kept them alive.

Personally, I see abortion (in the right circumstances) as perfectly acceptable. In this case, I see this as a willful act on the part of the parents - they listened to their 'faith', which lead to the death of two of their BIRTHED children. This means that they essentially agreed to become parents, and then ALLOWED two of their children to die. In my eyes, that fact alone constitutes child abuse/endangerment.

Your welcome but I think a debate on abortion could be exactly where this is going lol....



I agree that there is a difference, but is a difference alone enough to make one "right" and the other "wrong"? I dont believe it is because both choices terminate potential life, birthed or unbirthed doesnt change the overall result, being death. We can draw the line in the sand wherever we please but it doesnt change the end result, and who draws the line to whos standards?. Also to say something is acceptable until it gets to *here* and then it becomes unacceptable is just an attempt to morally justify the same end result. This is the trappings of morality.

Abortion is a choice resulting in death, this case too is death caused by choice. I understand this particular case sits badly with a lot of people, which is perfectly understandable but I'm sure abortion sits just as badly with those that oppose it. Basically people can give as many reasons as they want why they find this case morally wrong but how does that apply to them? Who chooses where the line is drawn? You, them? Or do we need a Morality Ministry instated to choose our morality for us?

People will never agree on the same morals because people are all different, thus morality will change from one to the next person. We can never set laws that agree with everyones morals, so instead of endlessly debating whos "right" and whos "wrong" and trying to achieve the impossible, we should respect others decisions. Now the real question is how do we encourage people to make sounder decisions? Only through education, I believe, can people become better equipped to make the best decisions, not the "right" decisions but the best decisions for them.

eleleth,

this is what I have been discussing with kratos in this thread.

I prefer to approach this without the "morality card" though as morality is relative. I prefer to look at what kind of society are we creating, and what kind of tolerances will we have. It is indeed so easy to create justifications for our actions, and so easy to say we are tolerant when everybody behaves the same way as us. Our real challenge is to accept the behaviours we disagree with that stem from those beleifs we disagree with (which we have so boldly claimed to tolerate). The test is in the actions. It is easy to say we tolerate and respect differing beliefs so long as those beliefs do not result in actions differing from our imposed norm. But we are not really granting a freedom of belief of people are not free to act upon and live by their beliefs. It is a form of "window dressing", at best.

Basically tolerance is a bandaid put on a wound that we are not trying to heal, in my opinion. We can all say we are tolerant of others beliefs but until we address the root of these beliefs we wont get very far. The first step I believe is to recognize that everyone has a different perspective, and accept the decisions they make for themselves based on their perspective but we also need to look at where these perspectives, and thus decisions, originate. We can all run around letting some people manipulate our perspectives and then be tolerant of each others perspectives but until we address where these perspectives originate, we are basically stacking the broken on top of the broken on top of the broken and then duct taping the top together and calling it fixed.

Now in my opinion, which I dont expect everyone to agree with, if the very foundation or root of our(in general) perspectives are broken we can either try to fix it or level it, I would prefer to level it.

An example might be clearer, we live in a world that in general holds capitalism to be the best way, we have tried others, communism, feudalism, fascism, etc but capitalism is the best system we supposedly have that continues to work. In my opinion it may be the best system for our vision of how things should work but in reality it is flawed, seriously flawed because it requires the steady flow of resources and capital to sustain itself but the Earth will eventually run out of resources. So sure its the best way but it still leads to a cliff. Now we can all be as tolerant as we can with each others place in this system but we are still headed for the cliff together. If we mastered tolerance we will simply not be fighting each other as we go over the cliff, if we havent mastered tolerance we will still be fighting each other as we go over the cliff, either way we never fixed the root problem which led us to the cliff.

I tolerate a JWs decision to refuse a blood transfusion to save their childs life but I still recognize someone else is making their decisions for them, their beliefs are dictating to them what is best for them. If we could discard all morality and beliefs its easy to see two people that want to have kids, that could do something to save their kids, would do it. Not choosing to do what it takes to save their kids means either they want their kids to die or are restricted by something. This restriction still needs to be addressed. So indeed tolerance is but "window dressing" at best.

we are on the same page, eleleth.